If the author of the claims: "irresponsible" and produces a "monstrous exe"
is not willing to detail things, or even publish the actual claims publicly
here, how serious is it?
(.. Or more properly fill out issue report tickets. ...)
And how can Stefan, or any one else take it seriously without proper
details and information?
If there are serious problems, lets actually have the details so that it
can all be fixed to work properly for the public good.
The purpose of a public group/list for really important things in cases
like this, is to ensure that the best answers can be illicited from a wider
audience.
Literally "put up", or "shut up", in this case I believe.
Paul
On 1 November 2011 12:40, Charlie Sharpsteen <chuck at sharpsteen.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Stefan Löffler <st.loeffler at gmail.com>wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>>>> On 2011-10-31 19:37, Charlie Sharpsteen wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Stefan Löffler <st.loeffler at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>> [1] "the wrong/naive/illusive Python embeding in this monstruous exe",
>>> "this project has drifted to become unusable", "completely irresponsible"
>>>>>>> Did they provide any specific examples of what is going wrong or
>> suggestions on how to improve things? Phrases like "completely
>> irresponsible" carry a lot of impact, but without supporting evidence they
>> are not very helpful.
>>>>>> No evidence as such (as in: things to fail, systems that are broken,
>> etc.) and no suggestions on how to improve things.
>> I should clarify that I received friendlier mails some time ago (from the
>> same person), but after a short discussion it converged to a "simply don't
>> do it, XYZ says it doesn't work" for me. No alternatives, no ways to
>> improve things.
>>>> As a result, I decided to drop Python for now, as stated in my previous
>> mail. On the positive side, the Windows build has become smaller ;).
>>>> Cheers,
>> Stefan
>>>> I've only done a brief once-over of the Python code and nothing jumped out
> as blatantly wrong. I will try to look at it more carefully when I get the
> time. I think QGIS embeds Python in manner similar to the way we do it and
> I know that Blender bundles its own Python interpreter into the Windows
> executable---so I am at a loss for explanations as to why what we do is
> "irresponsible" and produces a "monstrous exe".
>> I certainly feel concern for the user who is experiencing problems---but
> without reproducible failures or an explanation of how we are using Python
> "irresponsibly" (Security risk? Incorrect method of packaging the
> interpreter with TeXworks?) there is nothing for us to improve. Also, I
> don't know if pulling Python support is the best fix for a situation that
> has not been demonstrated to exist.
>> But that is your call as the packager for Windows. If any important
> details come out, be sure to share them with me so I can adjust the Mac
> builds if necessary.
>> -Charlie
>-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tug.org/pipermail/texworks/attachments/20111101/dd91b383/attachment.html>